When To Delegate Decision Authority?

One of the questions when designing decision governance is whether to motivate an individual with authority to delegate it to someone else.

Moneyball (2011) is based on the true story of Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt), the general manager of the Oakland Athletics baseball team. The film is interesting because in it, Beane delegates key decision-making authority to Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill), a young economist and statistician who uses a data-driven approach to build a competitive team, and this turns out to be successful. 

This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.

Billy Beane, struggling with a limited budget to recruit star players, recognizes that traditional methods of scouting talent are failing the team. Brand introduces Beane to sabermetrics, a statistical approach that evaluates undervalued players based on performance metrics rather than conventional scouting wisdom. Initially skeptical, Beane eventually delegates recruitment decisions to Brand, allowing him to select players using his approach.

This delegation proves beneficial for Beane and the Oakland Athletics in several ways:

1. Innovative Approach: Brand’s data-driven decision-making was a new way to evaluating players. It focused on undervalued talent rather than traditional, expensive players. This leads to a low-cost team that performs unexpectedly well.
2. Success of the Team: The team goes on to achieve a 20-game winning streak, setting an American League record, and proving that the sabermetric method was not only valid but superior in this context.
3. Reputation and Legacy: By delegating these decisions, Beane gains recognition as a pioneer in baseball management, influencing the future of the sport, while also demonstrating that resource constraints can be overcome through innovative thinking.

This example illustrates several of the factors that influence delegation of decision rights:

• Expertise: Beane acknowledges Brand’s superior expertise in statistical analysis, which Beane himself lacks, and chooses to trust the approach.
• Cognitive Load Reduction: By delegating, Beane reduces his own cognitive load, allowing him to focus on broader managerial duties rather than the specifics of player recruitment.
• Creativity: Brand’s unconventional methods, enabled by delegation, lead to creative solutions that traditional approaches could not achieve.
• Risk Mitigation: Though risky, the sabermetric approach disperses the burden of decision-making and ultimately mitigates the risks of competing with a low-budget team.

The delegation in “Moneyball” highlights how leveraging another individual’s expertise and allowing for innovation in decision-making can result in significant benefits for the delegator.

Can decisions for others be more creative than decisions for the self?

Academic research suggests that decisions made for others can be more creative than those made for oneself. 

Polman and Emich (2011) provide empirical support for this idea. They found that individuals tend to engage in more creative problem-solving when they are making decisions on behalf of others. 

The explanation provided is that decision-makers often adopt a more abstract mindset when thinking about distant others, which is associated with construal level theory (CLT). CLT posits that as psychological distance increases, people shift from concrete, specific, detail-oriented thinking to abstract thinking, which may help broaden the scope of potential solutions considered. In addition, this shift seems to allow for more novel and unconventional options to be explored compared to decisions made for oneself; the delegate may be less constrained by the decision maker’s personal concerns and immediate realities, as the former may simply have no idea about these.

Further research by Kray et al. (2014) suggests that when people make decisions for others, they tend to take more risks and think outside the box because they are less bound by self-interest, loss aversion, or concerns about personal accountability. This risk-taking behavior correlates with more creative decision-making processes, as the decision-maker is less focused on the direct impact of failure.

What guidelines can be implemented through decision governance to motivate an individual to delegate a decision to another one?

In a decision situation where individual A is considering allowing another individual, B, to make decisions on their behalf, the following guidelines could help motivate A to delegate decision-making authority to B. 

1. Establish Clear Criteria for Competence and Expertise

A’s motivation to delegate decision-making authority to B is likely to be higher if A believes that B has relevant expertise or competence. Research by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) highlights that perceived competence is a key dimension of trust, which is critical for delegation. A should be reassured that B possesses the necessary skills, experience, or knowledge to make effective decisions.

• Guideline: Clarify the specific expertise B has in the decision context, supported by prior successful decision-making examples.

2. Foster Trust Through Transparency

Trust is essential for A to feel comfortable delegating decisions to B. Transparency in the decision-making process, including clear communication about how B will approach the decision, can enhance A’s willingness to delegate. Trust can be reinforced by ensuring that B explains the criteria and reasoning they will use, providing a sense of control and predictability.

• Guideline: Ensure B communicates the decision-making process and the rationale behind it clearly to A, offering transparency about the steps and criteria used.

3. Highlight the Creative Benefits of Delegation

Research by Polman and Emich (2011) shows that decision-makers are often more creative when making decisions on behalf of others due to the increased psychological distance and abstract thinking this induces. Emphasizing that B’s decisions may lead to more innovative solutions compared to A’s self-directed decisions could be an important motivating factor.

• Guideline: Explain that B’s creative problem-solving abilities may produce more innovative or novel solutions than A might generate on their own, especially in situations requiring out-of-the-box thinking.

4. Define Clear Accountability Structures

A key concern for A in allowing B to make decisions on their behalf may be the potential for blame or accountability if the decision leads to negative outcomes. Research by Tetlock (1985) suggests that individuals are more comfortable with delegation when accountability structures are clear. By establishing clear mechanisms for reviewing outcomes and distributing accountability fairly, A is more likely to feel secure in delegating decision authority.

• Guideline: Create a formal accountability structure where B is held responsible for their decisions, and agree on review points or criteria for evaluating the success of the decision.

5. Increase Psychological Distance to Reduce Bias

Construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) suggests that individuals make more objective and less emotionally influenced decisions when the psychological distance is increased. Encouraging A to think about the decision from a broader, long-term perspective can reduce their emotional attachment to making the decision personally, making delegation easier.

• Guideline: Encourage A to focus on the long-term implications and strategic goals, framing the decision in terms of its broader impact rather than immediate concerns, thus increasing the psychological distance and easing delegation.

6. Frame Delegation as a Means to Reduce Cognitive Load

Research in decision fatigue (Baumeister et al., 1998) shows that individuals experience cognitive depletion when faced with a series of decisions, often leading to suboptimal choices. By framing delegation to B as a way for A to reduce their cognitive load and preserve decision-making energy for more critical tasks, A may feel more motivated to delegate.

• Guideline: Position the delegation as a way for A to conserve cognitive resources, allowing them to focus on more strategic or high-impact decisions.

7. Provide Autonomy with Feedback Loops

While delegation involves transferring decision authority, A may be more comfortable if they retain some level of involvement or oversight through feedback loops. Establishing mechanisms for A to review B’s decisions and provide input at key stages can increase A’s confidence in delegating while maintaining a sense of control.

• Guideline: Set up regular checkpoints or decision milestones where A can review progress and provide feedback to B, maintaining a balance between autonomy and involvement.

References

• Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265.
• Kray, L. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Wong, E. M. (2014). Thinking inside the box: The relational processing style elicited by making decisions for others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 265-272.
• Polman, E., & Emich, K. J. (2011). Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 492-501.
• Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
• Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297-332.

Definitions

• Decision fatigue: A phenomenon where the quality of decisions deteriorates after an extended session of decision-making, as the cognitive resources required for effective decision-making are depleted (Baumeister et al., 1998).
• Accountability structure: A formal mechanism through which responsibility for outcomes is assigned and monitored, often providing reassurance in delegation scenarios (Tetlock, 1985).
• Psychological distance: A cognitive separation between the self and others, or between the self and an event. As psychological distance increases, individuals tend to engage in more abstract and creative thinking (Trope & Liberman, 2010).
• Construal level theory (CLT): A theory suggesting that psychological distance influences the abstract or concrete nature of people’s thoughts, with more distance leading to more abstract thinking (Trope & Liberman, 2010).